Jump to content
Who is demanding that you dump your guns? That has never been part of the issue. Nobody has ever asked for anybody to turn in lawfully acquired guns. If you own a gun, you can keep them and all the ammo you want. Now if you want to go buy a automatic rifle with a huge magazine, you'll need to get a background check and smaller magazine. I'm sure you would pass the check with no problems. But if somebody has a history of violence or mental history, they don't get a gun. That's fair.
Please tell me what limber mills, logging operations, power plants, etc have been shut down. The last time I looked, the energy companies are not having issues drilling everywhere possible, except the ANWR.
Fred, Those issues don't shut down the government. And I'll remind you that GW Bush was master of "my way or the highway". There was no negotiating with Dems on a lot of issues that were forced on them - tax breaks again and again, wars again and again. We didn't shut down the government to get our way. Maybe we should have though after the severe economic impacts of two wars, tax cuts and deregulation. How would you like it if one of your supervisors shut down work for a few days so they could get concessions from you? You'd probably fire them the first day, right?
Scott, good points.
And as a general point, nobody is trying to take away your guns or large magazines. Gun checks and magazine limitations are targeted to reduce mass murder. A study published last month shows that high gun ownership does not make a country safer, "the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least."
In reality, the recall showed that Citizens United is having a huge impact across our nation. The NRA spent over $400,000 to recall those individuals. The senators obviously did not have the same deep pockets to counter. As we go into the third day of the shutdown, we need to remember that the majority rules in this country through public elections. In turn, the minority should not be able to threaten their way into running the government. Sorry Kevin, but it's not "liberal, Front Range, New York and Washington agendas" it the majority of people that voted this government into office. Keep voicing your opinion, vote in the next elections and maybe the tide will turn. But for now, we all need to act like civilized people even though we don't always agree.
Finding common ground on spending cuts is one thing, defunding a program that is already law is another. Holding the country hostage because you don't like a law is childish and irresponsible behavior. Previous to the tea party, the debt ceiling and budget processes were bipartisan affairs. There is no precedent to this in modern American politics. The legislative process is in place for a reason. Laws are passed, or not, because we agree on them and move forward. I argue that the Affordable Care Act is incomplete because of negotiations and compromise that made it the way it is now. But that's the way it goes. Democrats were not happy with the Bush tax cuts, but they didn't shut the country down to get their way. And, Ted Cruz's grandstanding did nothing but give him prime spotlight that he's looking for in the next presidential election - then he actually voted for it! I say the republican actions are ridiculous and they are sore losers. If you really want to reduce spending, why is the focus only on this one issue? BTW, Republicans have successfully defunded many programs and recently cut food stamps, sending more people into poverty.
One more thing. People with money don't drop out of the economy as taxes increase. If anything, those at the bottom do and are left behind.
Last year the US set a record for income gap:
->The top 1% of US earners collected 19.3% of household income, breaking a record previously set in 1927.
->The top 10% of richest households represented just under half of all income in the year.
Since our tax system is progressive, only an incremental amount of earnings in the next tax bracket gets taxed. So if you make $250,001 and $250,000 is the next tax bracket, that $1 gets the higher tax. If you went from 25% to 28%, the on that dollar you would take home $.72 instead of $.75 . You are still making $.72 of every dollar for your hard work - hardly a reason to drop out of the economy .
The macroeconomic theory is that government needs to spend in times of recession because the private sector is unwilling or unable to do so. The government must step in to avoid an elevated recession or depression. This is exactly what just happened to us. The govt stimulus kept us from a deeper recession and possibly another great depression. And many economists say that we did too little and politics kept anything bigger from happening. In Europe, where the governments were acting as the Tea-party wanted to act here, they imposed harsh austerity during a recession and the situation is much worse now. If nobody including the government spends, then the entire economy contracts, reducing GDP, taxes and govt as well as private spending. Businesses stop hiring or layoff people, those people cannot find work because of high unemployment, they require more government assistance and have less to spend in the local economy. This in tern hurts local economies - and if the local govt is laying off people (teachers, police, etc) it again only causes a bigger problem. The sooner the economy rebounds, the sooner people get back to work, tax receipts go up, local and national businesses recover, GDP goes up and the govt can easily payback the debt incurred during the recession.
Instead we had elected officials, many of whom don't understand these basic ecominc principles, crying wolf that inflation and debt were the problem in an attempt to disable the social safety nets that make this country progressive. Now here we are with a high-unemployment rate, many of whom have been looking for work for years, some dropping out of the work force all together, no end in sight (and relying on govt assistance through no fault of their own).
Paul Krugman is one of the smartest people in the country. I would recommend that everybody read his op-ed in the NY times every Monday and Friday. He does a good job of calling it like it is with regards to the economy.
I think there needs to be clarification on Krugman's quote used out of context. In the article he was saying that politics is causing bad policy, not the presidents policies. He even states that had we had more stimulus, not less, it would have helped the economy and therefore job creation. Leadership is not the problem (on this issue), it's total obstruction from the right. Yes there have been leadership failures, but less so than the previous president.
More of Krugman's text below:
"The Obama stimulus, inadequate as it was, stopped the economy’s plunge in 2009. Europe’s experiment in anti-stimulus — the harsh spending cuts imposed on debtor nations — didn’t produce the promised surge in private-sector confidence. Instead, it produced severe economic contraction, just as textbook economics predicted. Government spending on job creation would, indeed, have created jobs."
"Still, I think it’s important to realize how badly policy failed and continues to fail. Right now, Washington seems divided between Republicans who denounce any kind of government action — who insist that all the policies and programs that mitigated the crisis actually made it worse — and Obama loyalists who insist that they did a great job because the world didn’t totally melt down.
Obviously, the Obama people are less wrong than the Republicans. But, by any objective standard, U.S. economic policy since Lehman has been an astonishing, horrifying failure."
Last login: Thursday, October 3, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.